Building the Next Generation of Researchers: Mentored Training in Dissemination and Implementation Science.

PROBLEM: Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science provides the tools needed to close the gap between known intervention strategies and their effective application. The authors report on the Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) program-a D&I training program for postdoctoral or early-career cancer prevention and control scholars. APPROACH: MT-DIRC was a 2-year training institute in which fellows attended 2 annual Summer Institutes and other conferences and received didactic, group, and individual instruction; individualized mentoring; and other supports (e.g., pilot funding). A quasi-experimental design compared changes in 3 areas: mentoring, skills, and network composition. To evaluate mentoring and D&I skills, data from fellows on their mentors' mentoring competencies, their perspectives on the importance of and satisfaction with mentoring priority areas, and their self-rated skills in D&I competency domains were collected. Network composition data were collected from faculty and fellows for 3 core social network domains: contact, mentoring, and collaboration. Paired t tests (mentoring), linear mixed models (skills), and descriptive analyses (network composition) were performed. OUTCOMES: Mentors were rated as highly competent across all mentoring competencies, and each mentoring priority area showed reductions in gaps between satisfaction and importance between the 6 and 18 months post-first Summer Institute. Fellows' self-rated skills in D&I competencies improved significantly in all domains over time (range: 42.5%-52.9% increase from baseline to 18 months post-first Summer Institute). Mentorship and collaboration networks grew over time, with the highest number of collaboration network ties for scholarly manuscripts (n = 199) in 2018 and for research projects (n = 160) in 2019. NEXT STEPS: Building on study findings and existing literature, mentored training of scholars is an important approach for building D&I skills and networks, and thus to better applying the vast amount of available intervention evidence to benefit cancer control.

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC)-Phase 2.

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC) is part of California Breast Cancer Research Program's (CBCRP) Initiative strategic priority to disseminate and implement high-impact, population-based primary prevention interventions. CLASP-BC is informed by six years of funded program dissemination and implementation (D&I) research and evaluation conducted by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) through its Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP). In its second phase, CLASP-BC will fund multi-sector, multi-jurisdictional initiatives that integrate the lessons learned from science with the lessons learned from practice and policy to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer and develop viable and sustainable infrastructure models for primary prevention breast cancer programs and research evidence implementation. Applications will be solicited from research, practice, policy, and community teams to address one or more of the intervention goals for the 23 risk factors identified in Paths to Prevention: The California Breast Cancer Primary Prevention Plan (P2P), expanding upon existing primary prevention efforts into two or more California jurisdictions, focused on disadvantaged, high risk communities with unmet social needs. The lessons learned from CLASP-BC will be widely disseminated within the participating jurisdictions, across California and, where applicable, to jurisdictions outside the state.

The "secret sauce" for a mentored training program: qualitative perspectives of trainees in implementation research for cancer control.

BACKGROUND: Mentored training approaches help build capacity for research through mentoring networks and skill building activities. Capacity for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in cancer is needed and mentored training programs have been developed. Evaluation of mentored training programs through quantitative approaches often provides us with information on "what" improved for participants. Qualitative approaches provide a deeper understanding of "how" programs work best. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 fellows of the National Cancer Institute-funded Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation in Cancer to gain understanding of their experiences with mentoring received during the program. Fellows were selected from all 55 trained participants based upon their gain in D&I research skills (highest and lowest) and number of collaborative connections in the program network (highest and lowest) reported in previous quantitative surveys. Phone interviews were recorded with permission, transcribed verbatim, and de-identified for analysis. Codes were developed a priori to reflect interview guide concepts followed by further development and iterative coding of three common themes that emerged: 1) program and mentoring structure, 2) importance of mentor attributes, and 3) enhanced capacity: credentials, confidence, credibility and connections. RESULTS: Interviews provided valuable information about program components that worked best and impacts attributed to participation in the program. Fellows reported that regular monthly check-in calls with mentors helped to keep their research moving forward and that group mentoring structures aided in their learning of basic D&I research concepts and their application. Accessible, responsive, and knowledgeable mentors were commonly mentioned by fellows as a key to their success in the program. Fellows mentioned various forms of impact that they attributed to their participation in the program including gaining credibility in the field, a network of peers and experts, and career developments (e.g., collaborative publications and grant funding). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that mentored training works best when mentoring is structured and coupled with applied learning and when respected and dedicated mentors are on board. Increased scientific collaborations and credibility within a recognized network are important trainee experiences that should be considered when designing, implementing, and sustaining mentored training programs.

Doing What We Know, Knowing What to Do: Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC).

Given the lack of progress in breast cancer prevention, the California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) plans to apply current scientific knowledge about breast cancer to primary prevention at the population level. This paper describes the first phase of Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC). The foci of Phase 1 are building coalitions and coalition capacity building through community engagement in community-based participatory research (CBPR) and dissemination and implementation (D&I) research training. Based on the successful implementation and evaluation of Phase 1, the foci of Phase 2 (presented separately in this special issue) will be to translate the California Breast Cancer Prevention Plan overarching goal and specific intervention goals for 23 breast cancer risk and protective factors strategies into evidence-informed interventions (EIIs) that are disseminated and implemented across California. CLASP-BC is designed to identify, disseminate and implement high-impact, population-based prevention approaches by funding large scale EIIs, through multi-jurisdictional actions, with the intent to decrease the risk of breast cancer and other chronic diseases (sharing common risk factors), particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and medically underserved populations in California.

Mentored training and its association with dissemination and implementation research output: a quasi-experimental evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is a continued need to evaluate training programs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Scientific products yielded from trainees are an important and objective measure to understand the capacity growth within the D&I field. This study evaluates our mentored training program in terms of scientific productivity among applicants. METHODS: Post-doctoral and early-career cancer researchers were recruited and applied to the R25 Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) between 2014 and 2017. Using application details and publicly available bibliometric and funding data, we compared selected fellows with unsuccessful applicants (nonfellows). We extracted Scopus citations and US federal grant funding records for all applicants (N = 102). Funding and publication abstracts were de-identified and coded for D&I focus and aggregated to the applicant level for analysis. Logistic regression models were explored separately for the odds of (1) a D&I publication and (2) US federal grant funding post year of application among fellows (N = 55) and nonfellows (N = 47). Additional models were constructed to include independent variables that attenuated the program's association by 5% or more. Only US-based applicants (N = 87) were included in the grant funding analysis. RESULTS: Fellows and nonfellows were similar across several demographic characteristics. Fellows were more than 3 times more likely than nonfellows to have grant funding after MT-DIRC application year (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1-11.0) while controlling for time since application year; the association estimate was 3.1 (95% CI 0.98-11.0) after adjusting for both cancer research area and previous grant funding. For publications, fellows were almost 4 times more likely to publish D&I-focused work adjusting for time (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.7-9.0). This association lessened after adjusting for previous D&I publication and years since undergraduate degree (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.2-7.5). CONCLUSIONS: We document the association of a mentored training approach with built-in networks of peers to yield productive D&I researchers. Future evaluation efforts could be expanded to include other forms of longer-term productivity such as policy or practice change as additional objective measures. D&I research trainings in the USA and internationally should consider common evaluation measures.

Dissemination and Implementation Science Training Needs: Insights From Practitioners and Researchers.

INTRODUCTION: Dissemination and implementation research training has great potential to improve the impact and reach of health-related research; however, research training needs from the end user perspective are unknown. This paper identifies and prioritizes dissemination and implementation research training needs. METHODS: A diverse sample of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers was invited to participate in Concept Mapping in 2014-2015. Phase 1 (Brainstorming) gathered participants' responses to the prompt: To improve the impact of research evidence in practice and policy settings, a skill in which researchers need more training is… The resulting statement list was edited and included subsequent phases. Phase 2 (Sorting) asked participants to sort each statement into conceptual piles. In Phase 3 (Rating), participants rated the difficulty and importance of incorporating each statement into a training curriculum. A multidisciplinary team synthesized and interpreted the results in 2015-2016. RESULTS: During Brainstorming, 60 researchers and 60 practitioners/policymakers contributed 274 unique statements. Twenty-nine researchers and 16 practitioners completed sorting and rating. Nine concept clusters were identified: Communicating Research Findings, Improve Practice Partnerships, Make Research More Relevant, Strengthen Communication Skills, Develop Research Methods and Measures, Consider and Enhance Fit, Build Capacity for Research, and Understand Multilevel Context. Though researchers and practitioners had high agreement about importance (r =0.93) and difficulty (r =0.80), ratings differed for several clusters (e.g., Build Capacity for Research). CONCLUSIONS: Including researcher and practitioner perspectives in competency development for dissemination and implementation research identifies skills and capacities needed to conduct and communicate contextualized, meaningful, and relevant research.

Framing research for state policymakers who place a priority on cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite the potential for reducing the cancer burden via state policy change, few data exist on how best to disseminate research information to influence state legislators' policy choices. We explored: (1) the relative importance of core framing issues (source, presentation, timeliness) among policymakers who prioritize cancer and those who do not prioritize cancer and (2) the predictors of use of research in policymaking. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected from US state policymakers (i.e., legislators elected to state houses or senates) from January through October 2012 (n = 862). One-way analysis of variance was performed to investigate the association of the priority of cancer variable with outcome variables. Multivariate logistic regression models examined predictors of the influence of research information. RESULTS: Legislators who prioritized cancer tended to rate characteristics that make research information useful higher than those who did not prioritize cancer. Among differences that were statistically significant were three items in the "source" domain (relevance, delivered by someone respected, supports one's own position), one item in the "presentation" domain (telling a story related to constituents) and two items in the "timeliness" domain (high current state priority, feasible when information is received). Participants who prioritized cancer risk factors were 80 % more likely to rate research information as one of their top reasons for choosing an issue on which to work. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the importance of narrative forms of communication and that research information needs to be relevant to the policymakers' constituents in a brief, concise format.

Concocting that Magic Elixir: Successful Grant Application Writing in Dissemination and Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: This paper reports core competencies for dissemination and implementation (D&I) grant application writing and provides tips for writing a successful proposal. METHODS: Two related phases were used to collect the data: a card sorting process among D&I researchers and an expert review among a smaller set of researchers. Card sorting was completed by 123 respondents. In the second phase, a series of grant application writing tips were developed based on the combined 170 years of grant review experience of the writing team. RESULTS: The card sorting resulted in 12 core competencies for D&I grant application writing that covered the main sections in a grant application to the US National Institutes of Health: (a) specific aims that provide clear rationale, objectives, and an overview of the research plan; (b) significance that frames and justifies the importance of a D&I question; (c) innovation that articulates novel products and new knowledge; and (d) approach that uses a relevant D&I model, addresses measurement and the D&I context, and includes an analysis plan well-tied to the aims and measures. CONCLUSIONS: Writing a successful D&I grant application is a skill that can be learned with experience and attention to the core competencies articulated in this paper.

Supporting the diffusion of healthy public policy in Canada: the Prevention Policies Directory.

Healthy public policy plays an essential role in a comprehensive public health approach to preventing cancer and chronic disease. Public policies spread through the 'policy diffusion' process, enabling governments to learn from another's enacted policy solutions. The Prevention Policies Directory (the Directory), an online database of municipal, provincial/territorial, and federal cancer and chronic disease prevention policies from across Canada, was developed to facilitate the diffusion of healthy public policies and support the work of prevention researchers, practitioners, and policy specialists. This information technology solution was implemented, through a participatory engagement approach, as a communication channel or policy knowledge transfer tool. It also addressed the intrinsic shortcomings of environmental scanning for policy surveillance and monitoring. A combination of quantitative web metrics and qualitative anecdotal evidence have illustrated that the Directory is becoming an important tool for healthy public policy surveillance and policy diffusion in Canada.

Promoting state health department evidence-based cancer and chronic disease prevention: a multi-phase dissemination study with a cluster randomized trial component.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and other chronic diseases reduce quality and length of life and productivity, and represent a significant financial burden to society. Evidence-based public health approaches to prevent cancer and other chronic diseases have been identified in recent decades and have the potential for high impact. Yet, barriers to implement prevention approaches persist as a result of multiple factors including lack of organizational support, limited resources, competing emerging priorities and crises, and limited skill among the public health workforce. The purpose of this study is to learn how best to promote the adoption of evidence based public health practice related to chronic disease prevention. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper describes the methods for a multi-phase dissemination study with a cluster randomized trial component that will evaluate the dissemination of public health knowledge about evidence-based prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases. Phase one involves development of measures of practitioner views on and organizational supports for evidence-based public health and data collection using a national online survey involving state health department chronic disease practitioners. In phase two, a cluster randomized trial design will be conducted to test receptivity and usefulness of dissemination strategies directed toward state health department chronic disease practitioners to enhance capacity and organizational support for evidence-based chronic disease prevention. Twelve state health department chronic disease units will be randomly selected and assigned to intervention or control. State health department staff and the university-based study team will jointly identify, refine, and select dissemination strategies within intervention units. Intervention (dissemination) strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, and remote technical assistance. Evaluation methods include pre-post surveys, structured qualitative phone interviews, and abstraction of state-level chronic disease prevention program plans and progress reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01978054.

Evolution of Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T.: moving research into practice.

Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are not broadly implemented, despite widespread availability of programs, policies, and guidelines. Systematic processes for integrating EBIs with community preference remain challenging for cancer control and prevention, as well as other areas. The Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. (P.L.A.N.E.T) Web portal provides a platform to access data, EBIs, and resources to foster local partnerships and assist public health researchers and practitioners design, implement, and evaluate evidence-based cancer control programs. This article summarizes the evolution of P.L.A.N.E.T. and describes effective and innovative Web 2.0 strategies to increase Web visits, create more interactive platforms for researchers and practitioners to integrate evidence-based resources, community preferences, and the complex context in which programs and policies are implemented. Lessons learned could benefit public health settings and reach low-income, high-risk communities. Researchers, community practitioners, and government partnerships should continue to develop and test innovative ways to address pressing issues in cancer control, health disparities, and health delivery.

Dissemination and implementation research on community-based cancer prevention: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: An extensive array of effective interventions for the prevention of cancer exists, suggesting that evidence is ready for widespread use. However, few of these approaches have been extensively utilized in real-world settings. Further, little is known on how to best disseminate and implement evidence-based interventions for the primary prevention of cancer in community settings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the dissemination and implementation literature was conducted between 2006 and 2008 in the topic areas of smoking, healthy diet, physical activity, and sun protection. English-language peer-reviewed articles published between 1980 and 2008 that met the inclusion criteria were classified by suitability of study design (i.e., greatest, moderate, least); quality of execution (i.e., good, fair, limited); and effectiveness (i.e., substantial, some, or little/no evidence of effectiveness) and were abstracted for dissemination- and implementation-related content. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five unique dissemination and implementation studies were identified. The majority of included studies were conducted in the U.S., in schools, and with children as the ultimate target population, had the least suitability of study design, had fair or limited execution, and used a theoretic framework, active dissemination and implementation approaches, and multimodal strategies. There was considerable heterogeneity across studies in reported mediators, moderators, and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Key implications from this review include the need for uniform language, studies targeting various populations and settings, valid and reliable measures, triangulation of and more practice-based evidence, standardized reporting criteria, and active and multimodal strategies.

Comprehensive cancer control-research & development: knowing what we do and doing what we know.

Comprehensive cancer control is defined as an integrated and coordinated approach to reducing cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality across the cancer control continuum from primary prevention to end-of-life care. This approach assumes that when the public sector, non-governmental organizations, academia, and the private sector share with each other their skills, knowledge, and resources, a country can take advantage of all its talents and resources to more quickly reduce the burden of cancer for all its population. One critical issue for comprehensive cancer control is the extent to which the private sector can contribute to cancer prevention and control programs and policies that have historically been lead by the public health sector, and similarly how can the public sector increase its investment and involvement in clinical research and practice issues that are largely driven by the private sector worldwide? In addition, building capacity to integrate research that is appropriate to the culture and context of the population will be important in different settings, in particular research related to cancer control interventions that have the capacity to influence outcomes. To whatever extent cancer control research is ultimately funded through the private and public sectors, if investments in research discoveries are ultimately to benefit the populations that bear the greatest burden of disease, then new approaches to integrating the lessons learned from science with the lessons learned from service (public health, clinical, and public policy) must be found to close the gap between what we know and what we do. Communities of practice for international cancer control, like the ones fostered by the first three International Cancer Control Congresses, represent an important forum for knowledge exchange opportunities to accelerate the translation of new knowledge into action to reduce the burden of cancer worldwide.

Translating science to practice: community and academic perspectives.

While evidence Reviews inform practice and policy guidelines, the gap between guidelines and implementation may be growing. We place dissemination and implementation Research in the context of other changes needed to drive Research into practice. Multilevel approaches to Research and dissemination are needed as are metrics to inform academic appointment and promotions. Moving beyond funding that stops and starts with grant cycles is a key issue from the community perspective to ensure continuity and improved health. Transdisciplinary approaches that cut across disciplinary boundaries to develop shared conceptual frameworks may help speed the integration of Research with practice. Identifying and implementing structural changes to develop and support transdisciplinary teams may further facilitate this process. Changes in the approaches used to structure and implement scientific advances into practice will help achieve the enormous potential to advance the health of the population.

Integrating research, practice, and policy: what we see depends on where we stand.

In this special issue of the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, the editors have taken on the important challenge of characterizing the current landscape of knowledge translation research and practice in public health. This includes the diffusion of scientific and program evaluation evidence into public health practice and policy, the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions in public health practice, and the complex issues associated with the meaning and methods of dissemination and implementation research. Three of the most important challenges for moving the field of dissemination and implementation science and research dissemination and implementation practice forward are the confusion of terminology, the meaning of evidence, and partnerships across the research, practice, and policy divides. Because many in the research, practice, and policy-making sectors do not see their role in closing the gap among research, practice, and policy, new and expanded incentives need to be put in place to encourage these collaborations. Partnerships between research, practice, and policy can help inform decisions in all three sectors to help achieve a better balance between evidence based on science and evidence based on personal experience.

Prostate cancer screening and shared decision-making preferences among African-American members of the Prince Hall Masons.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended as one method to assist men in making an informed decision about prostate cancer screening (PCS). SDM preferences for PCS have not been evaluated among African-American (AA) men. Given AA men's increased risk and the uncertainty surrounding screening, it is critical to determine how to assist AA men in making an informed decision. We assessed the extent to which a sample of AA men wished to engage in SDM regarding PCS and the demographic and psychological characteristics associated with SDM preferences. METHODS: Participants completed a telephone interview that covered demographic and medical information, SDM preferences, PCS knowledge, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with previous screening decisions. Subjects included 286 AA men aged 40-70, who were members of a Masonic organization. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent preferred SDM, 36% preferred to make their own decision, and 7% wanted their doctor to decide. A higher level of education and older age were associated with preferring SDM (p<0.05), while men with greater PCS knowledge were more likely to prefer to make the decision independently (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that physicians need to be prepared to discuss PCS with their patients. Further, more attention may be needed to engage younger, less educated, and less knowledgeable men as they may be less likely to discuss PCS. This understanding of AA men's preferences for PCS decisions helps to clarify the issues that health professionals need to consider when attempting to assist AA men in making a PCS decision.

Educating African American men about the prostate cancer screening dilemma: a randomized intervention.

BACKGROUND: Until there is a definitive demonstration that early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer reduces disease-related mortality, it is imperative to promote informed screening decisions by providing balanced information about the potential benefits and risks of prostate cancer screening. Within a community/academic collaboration, we conducted a randomized trial of a printed booklet and a videotape that were designed for African American (AA) men. The purpose of the trial was to determine the effect of the interventions on knowledge, decisional conflict, satisfaction with the screening decision, and self-reported screening. METHODS: Participants were 238 AA men, ages 40 to 70 years, who were members of the Prince Hall Masons in Washington, DC. Men were randomly assigned to the (a) video-based information study arm, (b) print-based information study arm, or (c) wait list control study arm. Intervention materials were mailed to men at home. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 1 month, and 12 months postintervention. Multivariate analyses, including ANCOVA and logistic regression, were used to analyze group differences. RESULTS: The booklet and video resulted in a significant improvement in knowledge and a reduction in decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening, relative to the wait list control. Satisfaction with the screening decision was not affected by the interventions. Self-reported screening rates increased between the baseline and the 1-year assessment, although screening was not differentially associated with either of the interventions. In exploratory analyses, prostate-specific antigen testing at 1 year was more likely among previously screened men and was associated with having low baseline decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents one of the first randomized intervention trials specifically designed to address AA men's informed decision making about prostate cancer screening. We have developed and evaluated culturally sensitive, balanced, and disseminable materials that improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening among AA men. Due to the high incidence and mortality rates among AA men, there is a need for targeted educational materials, particularly materials that are balanced in terms of the benefits and risks of screening.

Methodologic challenges in disseminating evidence-based interventions to promote physical activity.

During the past decade, numerous intervention studies have been published on the effectiveness of programs to promote active living; however, few studies have addressed the dissemination of effective physical activity interventions. Both community settings and healthcare settings are important locations for dissemination of evidence-based programs and policies. A major gap in the existing literature involves the appropriate methodologic approaches for planning, evaluating, and reporting on dissemination efforts for effective and promising interventions in these locations. To address this gap, two hypothetical dissemination studies are presented: a quasi-experimental study of local health agencies (Scenario 1) and a group-randomized trial of clinical practices (Scenario 2). These studies help to elucidate the barriers and opportunities for implementing evidence-based physical activity interventions across different settings. Based on the scenarios, the existing literature, and the authors' experience, dissemination challenges that researchers and practitioners may experience (i.e., issues of design, measures of outcomes and external validity, the balance between fidelity and adaptation to local settings, and the review and funding of dissemination science) are discussed. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers are invited to address the issues outlined in this article in order to bridge the gap between the generation of new knowledge on efficacious physical activity interventions and widespread application of these approaches in community and clinical settings.

Knowledge translation versus knowledge integration: a "funder's" perspective.

Each year, billions of US tax dollars are spent on basic discovery, intervention development, and efficacy research, while hundreds of billions of US tax dollars are also spent on health service delivery programs. However, little is spent on or known about how best to ensure that the lessons learned from science inform and improve the quality of health services and the availability of evidence-based approaches. To close this discovery-delivery gap, researchers and their funding agencies not only must recognize the gap between basic discovery and intervention development, addressed in part through translational research investments, but they must also work together with practitioners and their funding agencies to recognize the growing gap between innovative interventions developed through research and what is actually delivered to reduce the burden of chronic disease within the United States. From a funding-agency perspective, the complexity of the challenges of translating lessons learned from science to public health, primary care, or disease specialty service settings requires a multifaceted partnership approach to accelerate the translation of research into practice. This essay reviews the background and challenges of closing the development-to-delivery gap and some exemplar strategies that have been used by funding agencies to address these challenges to date.